Phu Tho pioneers, Hanoi expands on a large scale, Nghe An, Gia Lai, Ca Mau also begin to apply or pilot.
For a long time, civil servant evaluation has been heavily qualitative. The completion rate is high, but people still complain about slow dossiers, cumbersome procedures, and unclear responsibilities.
A paradox that has existed for many years but has not had a satisfactory solution, evaluating officials with KPIs is expected to solve that paradox.
How many tasks does a civil servant do, whether he completes them on time or not, what is the quality, what is the effectiveness, many work contents can be quantified by data.
Evaluating with data will reduce dependence on the subjective opinions of superiors or colleagues, and even less by feelings of love or hate or factionalism.
The work results are digitized and monitored regularly, the assessment will be based on. The head also has more basis for commending, planning, appointing or replacing weak officials.
Phu Tho province announced that it will dismiss, resign, and replace cadres with limited capacity through quarterly and annual evaluation results.
Gia Lai also affirmed the implementation of the policy of "there is in, there is out", "there is up, there is down".
Supporting the drastic approach of the above localities. The public power apparatus cannot only have an entrance and no entrance, the state agency is "lifetime staff".
It is even more unacceptable that the situation of slow-motion workers still exists, even progressing more than dedicated, creative and effective people.
People who work a lot must be recognized, those who create value must enjoy worthy achievements. Development opportunities must be linked to work results, not seniority or relationships.
Conversely, people who do not complete their tasks can also find it difficult to blame their superiors, data does not know how to be considerate, and software does not know how to be biased.
Each task has a deadline, product and specific results. Objective numbers are always more convincing than emotional explanations.
Fairness in evaluating officials also creates great motivation for civil servants to work substantively. And of course, it will be too late for officials to carry umbrellas in the morning and carry them home in the evening.
Of course, building KPIs in the public sector is not easy, because not every job can be converted into simple indicators.
If only chasing after the number of processed dossiers and ignoring service quality, KPI will lose its meaning.
Therefore, the set of criteria must be scientific, suitable for each job position and reflect the quality of public service performance.
If the design is unscientific or chasing after achievements, KPI may cause officials to prioritize easy-to-measure tasks while underestimating tasks that are difficult to quantify but have long-term value. Therefore, building a set of criteria should avoid thinking about quantity instead of quality.
People's satisfaction level needs to become one of the important measures, because after all, all administrative reforms are aimed at serving people and businesses.
